katsubento
Member
That's more the exception and not the norm though.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A game designer's critique on Achievement and Trophy systems
- Thread starter Toadthemushroom
- Start date
That's more the exception and not the norm though.
InsaneTiger
Member
So anti-consumer, right?
InsaneTiger
Member
The argument against chievos is overblown.
"We're all being manipulated man!"
Yup, we are. Next.
"We're all being manipulated man!"
Yup, we are. Next.
I'm fairly obsessed with platinum trophies, and as a game completionist, getting one really does feel like an achievement. Especially grinding ones like the Souls series, or Persona 5 that requires additional playthroughs.
Having said that, I wish I could break free from the 'need' to obtain them. 95% of the time, I'm stuck doing repetitive tasks for no purpose and sit there in a trance for hours. My wife thinks i'm crazy. I'm inclined to agree.
Perhaps not having achievements is truly Nintendo's masterstroke with the Switch.
Having said that, I wish I could break free from the 'need' to obtain them. 95% of the time, I'm stuck doing repetitive tasks for no purpose and sit there in a trance for hours. My wife thinks i'm crazy. I'm inclined to agree.
Perhaps not having achievements is truly Nintendo's masterstroke with the Switch.
No, but I like candy.
Does candy have bad points? Yes.
Does candy have good points? Yes.
Do I blame candy when I get diabetes after eating 6 bags of candy a day for 5 years? No.
But will you blame food providers who put sugar everywhere without telling you and gave you diabetes without you knowing?
I'm having trouble parsing your analogy. Hold on, let me put my hat on...
That's better. Yes.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Are you a crackhead?I'm having trouble parsing your analogy. Hold on, let me put my hat on...
That's better. Yes.
Are you a cop?
I don't usually pay attention to achievements unless the platinum is very doable within a normal timespan.
If it means anything like playing the core game 3 or more times, doing insane challenges that need you to practice your skill for 50 plus hours outside of the game, or intense and LONG slogs through boring stuff I won't touch it for the most part.
I love a challenge, but not if it is going to waste my time. There are way too many games to play.
This is basically what I am talking about. I could not imagine life if I was actually addicted to this useless stuff. Look, some games are cool and all, but hell no to most of this. The Souls games are usually one and done for me despite being great games. Same with things like Witcher 3 and the rest of them on up to Super Meat Boy. I see no point, no reward worth having, in beating every single one of them. In the case of SMB I couldn't even do it anyway.
SMB could be a good achievement to own because it actually does take skill. Any random adventure game though? Not usually. Mostly just random grinds that mean nothing. I took a look at Uncharted 4, which I beat on Crushing first time. It's a game where maybe if I ever start replaying it I will go for the plat. But something like Last of Us required way too much grind and repetition for no actually rewarding gameplay. I beat all of ND's games on Crushing the first time, so if they have the balls to make me play it three times or whatever for a plat then fuck them is basically my point.
The Souls plats are exactly that for me. I just don't see the point in doing them again because it's not fun for me.
If it means anything like playing the core game 3 or more times, doing insane challenges that need you to practice your skill for 50 plus hours outside of the game, or intense and LONG slogs through boring stuff I won't touch it for the most part.
I love a challenge, but not if it is going to waste my time. There are way too many games to play.
This is basically what I am talking about. I could not imagine life if I was actually addicted to this useless stuff. Look, some games are cool and all, but hell no to most of this. The Souls games are usually one and done for me despite being great games. Same with things like Witcher 3 and the rest of them on up to Super Meat Boy. I see no point, no reward worth having, in beating every single one of them. In the case of SMB I couldn't even do it anyway.
SMB could be a good achievement to own because it actually does take skill. Any random adventure game though? Not usually. Mostly just random grinds that mean nothing. I took a look at Uncharted 4, which I beat on Crushing first time. It's a game where maybe if I ever start replaying it I will go for the plat. But something like Last of Us required way too much grind and repetition for no actually rewarding gameplay. I beat all of ND's games on Crushing the first time, so if they have the balls to make me play it three times or whatever for a plat then fuck them is basically my point.
The Souls plats are exactly that for me. I just don't see the point in doing them again because it's not fun for me.
Refreshment.01
Member
i must confess i limited myself to read what you posted in here, with that said.
In short there are good and bad implementations of a given system, feature, method or effect. For example, Quick Time Events, Motion Controls, Bloom, Shaky Cam, etc.
i think what hurts the most and stop progress when discussing these type of things is the attitude people involved in gaming assume, basically they focus on negative implementations and satanize the feature. Instead of centering in the positive cases, been comunicative about them so both users and developers can be aware and enrich themselves and iterate/improve from there.
Why exactly should i start calling the good implementations of achievements the specific name the author has chosen? In this sense, seems he's contribution to the "issue" is a rather superficial one instead of coming up with a better system.
The conclusion about "achievements" not having much of a significant impact in the performance of a platform is based on a rather sandy foundation when he points at Nintendo systems not adopting the feature. Imagine if i said to you, that a competent and feature rich network infraestructure is not important and then point out at systems like the Wii or Switch.
Look at a game like Golden Eye which basically had a proto achievement system. Now let's look at it as good implementation but with the added benefits of been sytem universal, shared and tracked across the user base of a given platform. And finally the feature is presented to the user as an option which he can turn on or off at will.
Spring-Loaded
Member
I'll take that as a "yes"
Crack can be a very positive thing, it doesn't have to be this big scary monster. I've met some really great people that also like crack and sometimes we go out and get crack together. Other times, it's nice to just try to get crack on your own and some people just really enjoy the challenge presented by getting specific types of crack. Not to mention, crack can sometimes get you to try things you never thought you would, which can enhance the experience greatly.
this thread is about trophies, I think
Another day another thread where I read people thinking they're being manipulated bc they don't ask a simple question: is it the achievements or the hunter?
If you don't like them turn off notifications, and don't explore the achievement portions of the OS.
To those that do like them bc the check a box and they like that feeling, achievements convince them to play differently, or whatever the reason. Than cool you like an optional thing that people can ignore while you enjoy it.
If you don't like them turn off notifications, and don't explore the achievement portions of the OS.
To those that do like them bc the check a box and they like that feeling, achievements convince them to play differently, or whatever the reason. Than cool you like an optional thing that people can ignore while you enjoy it.
InsaneTiger
Member
Yup
This is not from the PoV of a player but from the PoV of game designer.
The distinction is important as when you're designing your stuff you can't disregard the side effect such a system will have on your overall product and on the people who will not turn off the system.
I'm replying to the many posts in this thread that are from the perspective of the player.
My problem is that people are duped into thinking that crack means better, that it means anything but what it is. Nobody cares about achievements in videogames but maybe something like Super Meat Boy or something that takes a lot of skill. You won't ever find me going oh man did that guy get the platinum in Uncharted or Dark Souls!
Even then not many people care. If you are someone that constantly just checks off all these lists and wastes all that time in one game then what is the point? If your answer is because it makes me happy that is a lie. You are addicted just like any other junkie. Simply, it makes me happy is not an answer with any worth in it for MOST people. Of course we are not talking about the occasional platinum or whatever. We are talking about people with 20 or 50 platinums or the equivalent.
Now if you are disabled or you have something going on where achievements are one of the only things that can satisfy your competitive spirit, I can empathize with that. There are limitations placed on you that are truly understandable. In that case achievements take the place of sports perhaps or something of that nature. Even then I see many disabled people that would never do this all day just because. But when fully functioning people act like they have nothing else in life they can do, and spend all day getting achievements, in my opinion that is being close to a junky. At least it is not drugs, but it can be very unhealthy. In some ways your brain is reacting exactly like drugs so it's still close.
Even then not many people care. If you are someone that constantly just checks off all these lists and wastes all that time in one game then what is the point? If your answer is because it makes me happy that is a lie. You are addicted just like any other junkie. Simply, it makes me happy is not an answer with any worth in it for MOST people. Of course we are not talking about the occasional platinum or whatever. We are talking about people with 20 or 50 platinums or the equivalent.
Now if you are disabled or you have something going on where achievements are one of the only things that can satisfy your competitive spirit, I can empathize with that. There are limitations placed on you that are truly understandable. In that case achievements take the place of sports perhaps or something of that nature. Even then I see many disabled people that would never do this all day just because. But when fully functioning people act like they have nothing else in life they can do, and spend all day getting achievements, in my opinion that is being close to a junky. At least it is not drugs, but it can be very unhealthy. In some ways your brain is reacting exactly like drugs so it's still close.
But from the perspective of a designer, these voices are actually important.
Even if they could without, their grievances still need to be taken into account as the game IS balanced toward the achievements being there.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Rare achievments give me a good rush. Those are all I care about anymore.
Yeah that is what I am talking about more or less. If I see you legit did the Impossible Boy on SMB you have my respect. Mostly anything else I really don't care and it's a waste of time to me.
uncelestial
Member
I have 100% stopped giving a shit about them.
I'm gonna play the game however I'm going to play the game. If you want to give me little badges for doing that, whatever.
When the 360 first implemented them I was all about it and checking out friends' achievement lists and everything. Not only that, I even chased after hard achievements from time to time. I just couldn't care less nowadays.
I'm old now, is part of the problem.
I'm gonna play the game however I'm going to play the game. If you want to give me little badges for doing that, whatever.
When the 360 first implemented them I was all about it and checking out friends' achievement lists and everything. Not only that, I even chased after hard achievements from time to time. I just couldn't care less nowadays.
I'm old now, is part of the problem.
I mean, he has a point. A lot of achievements are completely arbitrary and add nothing to a game besides little checkboxes to tick off. And they're added in almost everything like they're necessary. When they aren't included people get upset.
I honestly wish they'd be optional with games, where more developers would just decide "Hey we really don't need this so let's focus on the game."
I honestly wish they'd be optional with games, where more developers would just decide "Hey we really don't need this so let's focus on the game."
Part of the problem, the other main part being these achievements are worthless, and you have better things to spend your time on. I'm older too, but even if I was younger I would never do these random ass things. A designer could literally make 3000 achievements for a game. You could make more and more and more. The point is like 85% of them are completely a waste of time.
And honestly, whether you like the achievement/trophy notification that comes up every time you get one, it does actually interfere in some games.
I shut them off for PS4. I have my entire overlay shut off on Steam. Some games don't even give me achievements lol. I used the manager for Ori because I do actually hate when it says no achievements for whatever reason.
Kaleinc
Banned
Yes, not much difference between them. And the usual mantra for achievements (If you don't want them just play the game) works very well for loot boxes.
I don't believe achievements factor in as much as you are giving them credit during design time.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
Whilst I understand and appreciate the perspective of this particular game designer, it's important to note that the points raised merely stand as his individual opinion alone, and he cannot and should not assume to be speaking on behalf of all game designers everywhere.
On the points themselves, I personally disagree, as I feel he fundamentally ignores the crucial point that it is the job of the game designer themselves to design and set the rules for achievements/trophies in the first place.
Criticizing the way other designers have set achievements is fine, but don't ignore the role and responsibility of the designer in that process and then draw some unfounded conclusion that achievements/trophies themselves are inherently bad.
I mean, he begins his piece with a statement that achievements are "at best worthless, and at worst influence players behavior" and yet seems not to qualify at all why he categorizes achievements inherently as such. The mere fact that plenty gamers actually do enjoy and see benefits in achievements falsifies this statement. Of course I recognize he's speaking from the perspective of a designer, but then a designer's job is to create a set of game rules and systems that facilitate the enjoyment of gamers, and so if some gamers are enjoying achievements (that have been well designed), you cannot conceivably declare that achievements are "at best, worthless".
Also, I entirely disagree with his counter strike example. In such a case, an achievement for some action that is inherently difficult to pull off in a game (e.g. kill more than x number of players with a grenade) is the absolute RIGHT action to set an achievement by... as in such a case the achievement takes nothing away from the player's experience of completing that action, but rather awards an accolade to only the very few players who during gameplay do pull off such a "once-in-a-gametime" feat.
Ultimately, it comes down to perspective. This game designer views achievements/trophy as checkboxes that take away from the player experience because he's probably reflecting on the many bad examples of achievements/trophies that exist as such.
On Playstation, for example, I like the idea of multiple tiers of trophies because, as much as I never intentionally go after them during gameplay, the different levels of trophies serve as a record of the individuals actions and progress I've made in a given game, a record that, unlike in-game leaderboards for example, trophies span all games and all players on the Playstation platform; allowing access to my record of exploits for all gamers across the platform, even those which haven't played the games I have... I find that rather cool.
In my mind, achievements/trophies serve multiple purposes, from:
- Allowing gamers to see a record of their in-game progress/achievements
- Allowing other gamers to see a gamer's achievements/progress
- Allowing for a visible record of what games a gamer has played
- Allowing developers the ability to learn how much of a game's content gamers have accessed
The latter point is interesting, since from a business intelligence point of view, achievements/trophies providing analytic info. on the degree of game content accessed is invaluable. Not only does it provide developers hard feedback on the successes/failures of their games' design but it also provides information and direction on how to improve things going forward into future game content, tweeks/updates and possible sequels... that's something devs have never had until now.
On the points themselves, I personally disagree, as I feel he fundamentally ignores the crucial point that it is the job of the game designer themselves to design and set the rules for achievements/trophies in the first place.
Criticizing the way other designers have set achievements is fine, but don't ignore the role and responsibility of the designer in that process and then draw some unfounded conclusion that achievements/trophies themselves are inherently bad.
I mean, he begins his piece with a statement that achievements are "at best worthless, and at worst influence players behavior" and yet seems not to qualify at all why he categorizes achievements inherently as such. The mere fact that plenty gamers actually do enjoy and see benefits in achievements falsifies this statement. Of course I recognize he's speaking from the perspective of a designer, but then a designer's job is to create a set of game rules and systems that facilitate the enjoyment of gamers, and so if some gamers are enjoying achievements (that have been well designed), you cannot conceivably declare that achievements are "at best, worthless".
Also, I entirely disagree with his counter strike example. In such a case, an achievement for some action that is inherently difficult to pull off in a game (e.g. kill more than x number of players with a grenade) is the absolute RIGHT action to set an achievement by... as in such a case the achievement takes nothing away from the player's experience of completing that action, but rather awards an accolade to only the very few players who during gameplay do pull off such a "once-in-a-gametime" feat.
Ultimately, it comes down to perspective. This game designer views achievements/trophy as checkboxes that take away from the player experience because he's probably reflecting on the many bad examples of achievements/trophies that exist as such.
On Playstation, for example, I like the idea of multiple tiers of trophies because, as much as I never intentionally go after them during gameplay, the different levels of trophies serve as a record of the individuals actions and progress I've made in a given game, a record that, unlike in-game leaderboards for example, trophies span all games and all players on the Playstation platform; allowing access to my record of exploits for all gamers across the platform, even those which haven't played the games I have... I find that rather cool.
In my mind, achievements/trophies serve multiple purposes, from:
- Allowing gamers to see a record of their in-game progress/achievements
- Allowing other gamers to see a gamer's achievements/progress
- Allowing for a visible record of what games a gamer has played
- Allowing developers the ability to learn how much of a game's content gamers have accessed
The latter point is interesting, since from a business intelligence point of view, achievements/trophies providing analytic info. on the degree of game content accessed is invaluable. Not only does it provide developers hard feedback on the successes/failures of their games' design but it also provides information and direction on how to improve things going forward into future game content, tweeks/updates and possible sequels... that's something devs have never had until now.
Jimnymebob
Member
Yeah, this is my favourite use for them too.
For me, trophies should be tied to either the natural progression/100% completion of the game, or offer ways to explore the game in different and meaningful ways (or just some silly and creative ones, like how the Crash trilogy has some for dying in certain ways). It's the multiplayer only ones, especially for multiplayer that is tacked on, and ones that require for you to grind with no end result. For example, getting all the Gorgon eyes etc. on the GoW games isn't necessary, but it's a practical challenge. On the other hand you get things that are basically (this is a fictitious example) get the max amount of each consumable on Bloodborne, which are an unnecessary grind whose sole purpose is to get the trophy.
LordRaptor
Member
Can people who like systemic achievements exactly as they are, please at least have the honesty to admit that they are not 'optional'?
"not being told how you are doing within a system" is not the same thing as "not being in a system"
Developers don't use achievements for telemetry and analytics.
Armchair quarterbacks do.
MugiwaraCole
Member
I think the 3 grenade kill example is kinda dumb.
If you lose the thrill of killing 3 enemies with a grenade because you realize other players have done so as well, that's a you problem.
Arguing the developer intended you to do something because it's listed as an achievement/trophy is weird too, since I'm always surprised looking at PS trophy data how few gamers end up getting trophies like that one. They're not requirements to win the game, just add ons.
Single favorite trophy I ever got was Flawless Raider. When my friends and I finally got that late one night, the whole PS party erupted into cheers. We'd been trying for it so long that my girl even came out from the back to congratulate me lmao.
Idk. There are shitty trophies/achievements, but there are tons of well thought out, fun ones too. Arguing nobody likes them is a non-starter, because, a ton of people love them. That bit just came off as pretentious and kinda whiny, especially since we can turn off notifications for these things now.
I never would've tried TLOU's multiplayer if not for the platinum. Holy hell, would that have been tragic.
If you lose the thrill of killing 3 enemies with a grenade because you realize other players have done so as well, that's a you problem.
Arguing the developer intended you to do something because it's listed as an achievement/trophy is weird too, since I'm always surprised looking at PS trophy data how few gamers end up getting trophies like that one. They're not requirements to win the game, just add ons.
Single favorite trophy I ever got was Flawless Raider. When my friends and I finally got that late one night, the whole PS party erupted into cheers. We'd been trying for it so long that my girl even came out from the back to congratulate me lmao.
Idk. There are shitty trophies/achievements, but there are tons of well thought out, fun ones too. Arguing nobody likes them is a non-starter, because, a ton of people love them. That bit just came off as pretentious and kinda whiny, especially since we can turn off notifications for these things now.
I never would've tried TLOU's multiplayer if not for the platinum. Holy hell, would that have been tragic.
Its still optional, regardless of whether you are in a system or not. No one is forcing you to look at the achievement functionality once you disable the notification.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I agree with this. These things are optional and, if you don't care for them, easily ignored. Turn off notifications, you don't need to look at Trochievements earned and don't let them influence your playstyle. Simples.
Yeah, this is what I primarily use them for too. They're a good way to record which games I have played and how fair I got in said games. I have about 13 Platinums, but of those only about five are ones which I really had to work for. A handful of them were simple (like Jak & Daxter or Super Exploding Zoo) and the rest were Telltale games.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I still find this a weak argument in response to whether they are good or bad or not. It's a critique, and saying that you can just turn them off and that they are optional isn't very helpful when weighing up achievements as a whole, both in terms of how they are designed and rolled out to players (from a game designer's perspective), and how we, as players, respond to them.
It would be like saying not to use an input device if it's rubbish in a game - e.g. the tilt controls in a game like Super Monkey Ball: Banana Splitz on Vita. But that doesn't mean the tilt controls aren't rubbish. You can sidestep them and ignore them and not be affected personally by it, but any sort of analysis would indicate that the controls are still inadequate.
It's potentially worse with achievement systems because what is bad can't be so easily sidestepped - the "harmless" achievements the author states, which basically work like operant conditioning, are a lot harder to see as something bad and something avoidable than something like trying an obviously poorly designed control scheme.
Don't get me wrong - I think your point is a valid one, but it's not a solution to anything other than one's intent to avoid them.
LordRaptor
Member
Its not optional.
If - as a game designer having read research about it - I do not want to include achievements in my game I have no option to do that.
Or if I want to include achievements in a non standard manner.
Or if I want to include thousands of achievements.
if - as a games player - I do not want that data collected and publically accessible, I have no option to opt out completely and have nothing be tracked.
The response to this from people that enjoy the systemic nature of the PS4 and Xbox achievement systems is that allowing them to be optional makes achievements "meaningless".
Yeah. Because fundamentally they are.
Sad to say but I have bought and not bought games based upon their Achievement/Trophy lists. I have folders on my PS3, Vita, and PS4 right now of cheap digital games I've labeled "Platinum to do list". I said I would quit when I hit 100 platinums but here I stand at 160+ saying I'll quit when I hit 200...Just yesterday I checked to see if Playerunknown Battlegrounds had achievements on Steam to gauge what the PSN trophy list may look like.
Kaleinc
Banned
So just like loot boxes, I wonder why so many people are butthurt about those.
Magicgamer101
Member
I mainly only trophy hunt in my second play through of games so I can't say they affect my gaming habits or whatever. I don't care about trophies but I love that they're there. Acts as a record of completed games, what's left to 100% a game or as a reminder if I ever want to go back to finish a game up.
UnluckyKate
Member
achievements should be about promoting feature and play style (try this type of weapons by killing 50 enemies, to get out your confort zone and not only use one single weapons) but not 1000 enemies. that's way to grindy.
They should push the player to try features, weapons, playstyle, a bit of crafting, a bit of exploration, a bit of everything.
It's okay to give a trophy for 5 Multiplayer matchs but not 100
They should push the player to try features, weapons, playstyle, a bit of crafting, a bit of exploration, a bit of everything.
It's okay to give a trophy for 5 Multiplayer matchs but not 100
Refreshment.01
Member
From your post im not understanding why the argument is "weak"... seems mostly an opinion.
If we are going to "weight achievements as whole", we can say, independently of how creative or well implemented a specific case is, they basically serve as a way to track and share progress within a game. Is like an statistic screen implemented at a system level. Think of them as an example more fleshed out log systems we see in Nintendo consoles like 3DS and Wii U.
Which quiet an universal backlash on Switch bare bones solution.
Regarding the "bana blitz tilt control example", imagine if a significant part of the user base is"engaged" at some level with that type of input. If a considerable amount of people found those controls atractive, while the other amount of the user base has the option to use a better control method without afecting their play experience then the consumer is not losing here. Developers will have to do some extra work, however, the tilt controls would be at an OS level so the burden of the implementation work is somewhat reduced.
This is a generalization that isn't refuting any of the statements nor it was implied in the post you reply to.
It has been explained already, independent of your personal views about a given games achievement, it has a tangible usability in terms of tracking and sharing game progress between users, which is not "bad" in itself but rather useful.
More over, the achievement discussion tends to be dishonest, when people that don't like them for whatever reason just focus on "bad" uses. No, a constructive discussion should cover both faults and merits.
As a player I am speaking from a player's point of view and not the developer. I actually don't see the point of caring if your data is collected since you obviously don't care to engage in that which is collected. Your option is to not pay attention to it, which honestly isn't difficult as I only care about achievements for some games (i.e. those I like enough to look at and want to play more of), otherwise I completely ignore them.
You're already entering an ecosystem, you're already being tracked.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I think you're reading too far into it. Basically, saying that someone can just ignore something bad if they feel it's bad is like sidestepping the criticism that made them think it's bad in the first place.